This section will highlight the
demonization and scapegoating of youth as a tactic in the
Right's campaign for law and order and the implementation
of punitive policies in schools. It will also challenge popular anti-youth claims.

During the 1980s and 1990s, the Right repeatedly characterized youth to be more violent and
less remorseful than ever. Capitalizing on the fears of older, White Americans, the Right has
escalated a campaign against youth, especially urban youth of color, as the cause for social
unrest. This fear is translated into increased funding for control mechanisms for youth, both
on the street and in schools. One of the most consistent arguments the Right used during the
mid-1990s was that even though overall crime had been declining over the past three decades,
violent crime among youth had been increasing, and that the crimes which were being committed
were much more heinous in comparison.

The Right, bolstered by the media, falsely predicted a wave of killer kids and stone-cold
predators." The Right attributes much of this to moral poverty," which they characterize as
the combination of single-parent households, the prevalence of hard drugs or alcohol in the
home, verbal or physical abuse, neglect, lack of positive role models such as parents, teachers,
coaches, or clergy, and parents who simply do not teach their children right from wrong. Some
on the Right even consider moral poverty a larger influence on juvenile crime than socioeconomic
status. Citing high divorce rates and the increasing number of children born out of wedlock,
some on the Right proclaimed that America is a ticking crime bomb."

The Right further asserts that the criminal justice system does not target youth of color in a
racist fashion. Rather youth of color are more prone to being morally impoverished.

Not only are our streets supposedly more unsafe, but according to many on
the Right, our schools have become virtual war zones." The highly publicized
school shootings of the mid 1990s escalated fear among White middle-class
Americans that their children were in grave danger. This was because the
mass-shootings that took place occurred in predominantly-White areas: Moses
Lake, Washington (1996); Pearl, Mississippi (1997); West Paducah, Kentucky
(1997); Jonesboro, Arkansas (1998); Springfield, Oregon (1998); and of
course Littleton, Colorado (1999). Even though the actual chance of a student
dying in school during the 1998-1999 school year was slightly less than one
in two million, 71% of the population thought that a school shooting was
likely" in their community.

The overwhelming response from parents and educators post-Columbine was
an across the board crackdown on all deviant behavior in schools. This was
not just against firearms, but also against drug and alcohol possession, dress
codes, and class disruptions. Though not born in response to Columbine,
zero tolerance" policies became favored by many school boards as parents
and educators feared the worst.

Despite the fear-mongering of the Right during the late 1990s, reality has
disproved much of their initial theories. Overall juvenile violent crime dropped
during the late 1990s, and the predicted wave of super-predators" and crack
babies" never materialized. Columbine was the last major school shooting,
and many school districts have now realized that zero tolerance policies
further criminalize students.

Chapter Contents

Pages 175-196 of Defending Justice, edited by Palak Shah

Role of the Right: The Myth of Crack Babies, Super-Predators and Gang-Bangers

Role of the State: Zero-Tolerance in Schools

No Child Left Behind

Debunking Anti-Youth Claims

Organizing Advice: Resisting the War on Youth, a Q&A with Inner City Struggle

Defending Justice is a publication of
Political Research Associates (PRA), an independent nonprofit research
center that exposes the Right and larger oppressive movements and institutions.
PRA produces research and analytic tools to inform and support progressive
activism.